History of Wrong Ideas

For all of history wrong ideas have been promoted to the status of Truth. Often, they come to dominate mainstream thinking for generations. It is not that institutions are incapable of promoting truth, or even that falsehoods are spread because of a sinister agenda (though sometimes they are), rather, it’s because truth is secondary to the primary mission of the institution.

Historical examples of such agenda bias include the following:

In 1203, Pope Innocent III published a decree formally known as the inquisition which demanded the extermination of what the Pope called ‘heresy’. Heresy was essentially a term for anyone who disagreed with the teachings of the Church, and included those audacious enough, like the astronomer Galileo, to suggest that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

The 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties; translation from the Latin:

"... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."

If we read closely, we see that the Church was formally involved in state-sponsored terrorism. This fact is historically recognized and not subject to interpretation. Yet the church is not by far the only corruptible institution. In the academic community, studies have been forged or finessed to favor the private interests who sponsor them; and regarding the State, Nations have waged wars for a number of unjust reasons while each case for war was supported in ‘less than truthful’ ways.
In each case, honest conduct is sacrificed for an agenda… truth relegated so that power can be preserved or increased.

One should be especially cautious of ideas foundational to the institution itself; these ideas will be protected at all costs – well after they are shown to be false. It is a law of nature that like living creatures, institutions will seek to preserve themselves; fight to survive. If the “Unicorn Foundation” was founded two thousand years ago, without a doubt, they would still be promoting the reality of Unicorns – long after discovering they are not real. Or, more accurately, those most closely bound to the institution would insist to themselves Unicorns are real – and the rest of us are simply blind.

Yet, because the institution and its members have an interest in first and foremost deceiving themselves, there need not be an active ‘conspiracy’ to deceive the rest of the public. From their perspective (the perspective of institutional leaders, and subsequently, followers), they are doing the rest of us a service! – even if we do not “realize” it. Even if they have to cut a few ‘ethical corners’ for the greater ‘good’. This type of thinking is ‘means to an end’ where, once a person or group believes strongly enough in the outcome they desire, they can rationalize less-than-ideal behavior.

Presently, the Vatican has a secret library3. Yet, their institution is based on the notion that two books (the Old and New Testament) are the exclusive word of God. So, for what reason would they conceal or restrict access to other information? Certainly there is a need to preserve such historic and often fragile documents – yet this does not prevent the collection from being digitized and shared with the world. Recently, the Vatican did share some documents from the secret archives, interestingly, on their website and in their public relations material, they continually emphasized that the ‘secret archives’ (as they are actually, formally called) are not “secretive”, but are instead called so because they belong exclusively to the Pope. They cite the older Latin usage which means ‘private’.

This semantic distinction is comical – it’s like saying: I’m not keeping secrets, there is just something that only I know, and this knowledge belongs exclusively to me. The point being, whatever the reasons for this clear case of secrecy, it is most certainly justified by the Church in their rationale for what is ‘good’ for the public – i.e. that ignorance is good for them.

Historically, when the Catholic church was conquering by force (i.e. terrorizing) indigenous cultures around the globe4 in the process of conversion, or, more recently, covering up scandals5, in the mind of its leaders it is almost certain that some ‘good’ is being performed, even when their deeds are violating the central tenets of their faith. Governments do the same, operation Northwoods is a documented plot considered by high ranking military officials to bomb a domestic aircraft and blame it on the Cubans. In their calculus – the domestic ‘collateral damage’ justified the result.

In state matters, when two or more armies come face to face, it is without a doubt both sides believe they are morally just; that each army is favored by God. The human intellect has an unlimited ability to justify or rationalize all forms of behavior, as a ‘means to a just end’.

In short, institutions are not necessarily or inherently ‘bad’ – rather they suffer a conflict of interest. They are resistant to change in light of new discoveries… in a world where the only constant is change. Consequently all truths which differ from their “version of the truth” pose a threat to their social, financial and political power.